United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division
A. INGRAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
referral from District Judge Van Tatenhove (D.E. 309), the
Court considers reported violations of supervised release
conditions by Defendant Andy Ray Lewis. This is his third
Van Tatenhove entered a judgment against Defendant in
November 2014 for one count of conspiracy to distribute
oxycodone. D.E. 223 at 1. Defendant was sentenced to 20
months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised
release. Id. at 2-3. Defendant began his first
supervised release term on December 17, 2015.
April 14, 2016, the United States Probation Office
(“USPO”) issued a Supervised Release Violation
Report charging seven violations of his release terms.
See D.E. 290. The violations concerned his use of
methamphetamine, cocaine, Suboxone, hydrocodone/hydromorphone
and buprenorphine. On May 10, 2016, Defendant stipulated to
all seven violations. D.E. 289. By judgment entered August
11, 2016, his release was revoked, and he was sentenced to
nine months of imprisonment, followed by three years of
supervised release. D.E. 293. Defendant was released again on
January 19, 2017.
April 25, 2017, the UPSO issued a Violation Report charging
two violations based on a positive urine test for
buprenorphine (Suboxone). See D.E. 303 at 2.
Defendant admitted the violations, and his release was
revoked by judgment entered August 3, 2017. D.E. 306. He was
sentenced to nine months of imprisonment, followed by three
years of supervised release. Id. A new condition was
added requiring that Defendant complete a three-month
inpatient drug treatment program immediately upon release.
Id. at 5. He was released again on February 20,
2018, and completed the required program.
November 29, 2018, the USPO issued the Supervised Release
Violation Report (“the Report”) that initiated
this revocation. The Report charges two violations.
the Report charges, in Violation #1, a violation of the
condition requiring that Defendant refrain from any unlawful
use of a controlled substance. According to the Report,
Defendant provided a urine specimen on November 6, 2018. On
November 15, Alere Toxicology provided results indicating
methamphetamine. This is a Grade C violation.
in relation to Defendant's alleged use of
methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, the
Report charges Defendant with a violation of the condition
requiring him to refrain from committing another federal,
state or local crime and the condition forbidding the
unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In light of
the Sixth Circuit's decision that use of a controlled
substance includes possession, and Defendant's criminal
history, Violation #2 charges Defendant with conduct that
would be a federal crime, i.e., simple possession of
a controlled substance, a Class E Felony, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 844(a). This is a Grade B violation.
January 3, 2019, the USPO issued an Addendum to the Report.
The Addendum charges a third violation. Violation #3 alleges
a Grade C violation of the condition forbidding the
commission of another federal, state, or local crime.
According to the Addendum,
On December 30, 2018, the defendant was arrested by an
officer of the Williamsburg Police Department and charged
with 1) No. Seat Belt, 2) No. Seat Belt, 3) Improper
Windshield, 4) No. Brake Light, and 5) Possession of a
Controlled Substance - 3rd Degree, Whitley County District
Court case number 19-M-4.
Lewis entered pleas of guilty to all charges on January 2,
2019. As to the most serious of the charges, Possession of a
Controlled Substance - 3rd Degree (a violation of KRS
§218A.1417), he was sentenced to six months of jail,
probated for two years, and a fine.
January 4, 2019, the Court conducted an initial appearance
pursuant to Rule 32.1. D.E. 311. The Court set a final
hearing following a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
waiver of the right to a preliminary hearing. Id.
The government made an oral motion for interim detention, and
Defendant did not argue for release. Id. The Court
found that detention was appropriate because Defendant ...